Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC v. West
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-05560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ultra International Music Publishing v. West, Judge Torres granted counsel’s withdrawal motion, sealed specified filings, and required West to address representation.
The order directly affected Kanye West and his lawyers at Greenberg Traurig. Greenberg Traurig was permitted to withdraw, West was required to report whether he had new counsel or would represent himself, and his deadline to respond to the complaint remained stayed until 30 days after that filing.
What happened
In Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC v. West, Greenberg Traurig asked to stop representing Kanye West, saying he had not cooperated with the lawyers. The case was still in discovery, and no trial date had been set.
The court found satisfactory reasons for the withdrawal and said it would not meaningfully delay the case. It also granted requests to file certain declarations under seal and outside the public record. West was told to say whether he had hired a new lawyer or would represent himself.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the motion for Greenberg Traurig to withdraw. She kept West’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint paused until 30 days after he filed his representation-status letter, and directed the clerk to remove the listed motions and Greenberg Traurig from the docket.
The detailed version
- Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC v. West · No. 1:22-cv-05560
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
Greenberg Traurig, LLP moved to withdraw as counsel of record for Kanye West, individually and doing business as “Yeezy Tech.” The firm asserted that withdrawal was necessary because West had failed to cooperate in prosecuting the case. The firm did not seek a charging lien, which is a lawyer’s claimed right to payment from a recovery in a case.
The court had previously required the firm to provide an affidavit describing its attempts to contact West and later ordered the firm to personally serve West with the withdrawal motion. The firm filed proof of service. Discovery remained pending, and no trial date had been set.
Court’s Analysis
Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires court approval before an attorney of record may withdraw and requires satisfactory reasons for withdrawal. The court considered both the reasons for withdrawal and the effect of withdrawal on the timing of the case. It concluded that a client’s failure to cooperate with counsel is a satisfactory reason and that withdrawal would not cause meaningful delay under the circumstances.
The court also reviewed the firm’s requests to file supporting declarations under seal and in camera, meaning outside the ordinary public filing record. The court found that the declarations contained confidential attorney-client communications and implicated significant privacy interests of non-parties. It concluded that these interests outweighed the presumption of public access.
Rulings and Case Status
The court granted Greenberg Traurig’s motion to withdraw as counsel. It also granted the requests to file ECF Nos. 44, 51, 56, and 57 under seal and in camera. West was directed to inform the court by January 4, 2023, whether he had retained new counsel or would proceed on his own behalf. If he proceeded without counsel, he was directed to provide contact information to the Southern District of New York’s Pro Se Office.
West’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint remained stayed until 30 days after he filed his letter about his representation status. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 43, 45, 50, and 55 and to terminate Greenberg Traurig from the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.